Leadless cardiac pacing in resource limited settings: A Groote Schuur hospital experience with the Micra leadless pacemaker

P. Mkoko, K. Govender, B.V.R. Gouws, A. Chin
{"title":"Leadless cardiac pacing in resource limited settings: A Groote Schuur hospital experience with the Micra leadless pacemaker","authors":"P. Mkoko, K. Govender, B.V.R. Gouws, A. Chin","doi":"10.24170/17-2-4147","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Background: Cardiac pacemakers improve survival and quality of life in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. However, conventional pacemakers carry a small risk of both acute and chronic lead and pacemaker generator complications. Leadless pacemakers negate these risks by not having a pacing lead and a subcutaneous generator. We report our Groote Schuur Hospital experience with the Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS). Methods: We report a consecutive case series of patients that received the Micra leadless pacemaker. The Micra transcatheter pacemaker, a single chamber ventricular pacemaker, is inserted using a TPS via the femoral vein into the right ventricle. Implantation data were obtained, and medical records were reviewed for the 6 weeks and 1-year follow-up visits. Results: A total of 5 patients were implanted with a Micra leadless pacemaker from 11 March 2015 - 2 November 2016. Four patients were male and 1 female, with an average age of 64 years. Four patients received the pacemaker for a second- or third-degree AV block and 1 patient received the pacemaker for unexplained syncope and right bundle branch block. The Micra leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in all patients with no acute implantationrelated complications. One-year follow-up was available for 4 patients with good pacing thresholds, sensitivity and impedance. One patient demised after 9 months post Micra implantation due to unrelated causes (acute myeloid leukaemia). Conclusion: The Micra leadless pacing system is safe and effective and shows good short-term results in a real-world, resource-limited setting. This form of pacing offers a viable option for patients who require pacing for AV block, especially in patients with vascular access problems or who are at high risk of lead or pacemaker generator complications.","PeriodicalId":55781,"journal":{"name":"SA Heart Journal","volume":"522 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2020-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"SA Heart Journal","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.24170/17-2-4147","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Cardiac pacemakers improve survival and quality of life in patients with atrioventricular (AV) block. However, conventional pacemakers carry a small risk of both acute and chronic lead and pacemaker generator complications. Leadless pacemakers negate these risks by not having a pacing lead and a subcutaneous generator. We report our Groote Schuur Hospital experience with the Medtronic Micra transcatheter pacing system (TPS). Methods: We report a consecutive case series of patients that received the Micra leadless pacemaker. The Micra transcatheter pacemaker, a single chamber ventricular pacemaker, is inserted using a TPS via the femoral vein into the right ventricle. Implantation data were obtained, and medical records were reviewed for the 6 weeks and 1-year follow-up visits. Results: A total of 5 patients were implanted with a Micra leadless pacemaker from 11 March 2015 - 2 November 2016. Four patients were male and 1 female, with an average age of 64 years. Four patients received the pacemaker for a second- or third-degree AV block and 1 patient received the pacemaker for unexplained syncope and right bundle branch block. The Micra leadless pacemaker was successfully implanted in all patients with no acute implantationrelated complications. One-year follow-up was available for 4 patients with good pacing thresholds, sensitivity and impedance. One patient demised after 9 months post Micra implantation due to unrelated causes (acute myeloid leukaemia). Conclusion: The Micra leadless pacing system is safe and effective and shows good short-term results in a real-world, resource-limited setting. This form of pacing offers a viable option for patients who require pacing for AV block, especially in patients with vascular access problems or who are at high risk of lead or pacemaker generator complications.
在资源有限的情况下无导线心脏起搏:grote Schuur医院使用Micra无导线起搏器的经验
背景:心脏起搏器改善房室传导阻滞患者的生存和生活质量。然而,传统的起搏器在急性和慢性导联和起搏器产生并发症方面都有很小的风险。无铅起搏器没有起搏导线和皮下发生器,从而消除了这些风险。我们报告格鲁特舒尔医院使用美敦力Micra经导管起搏系统(TPS)的经验。方法:我们报告了连续的病例系列患者接受Micra无铅起搏器。Micra经导管起搏器,单室心室起搏器,使用TPS通过股静脉插入右心室。获得植入数据,并回顾6周和1年随访的医疗记录。结果:2015年3月11日至2016年11月2日,共5例患者植入Micra无铅起搏器。男性4例,女性1例,平均年龄64岁。4例患者因二度或三度房室传导阻滞而使用起搏器,1例患者因不明原因晕厥和右束支传导阻滞而使用起搏器。所有患者均成功植入Micra无铅起搏器,无急性植入相关并发症。4例起搏阈值、敏感性和阻抗良好的患者随访1年。1例患者在Micra植入9个月后因无关原因(急性髓性白血病)死亡。结论:Micra无导线起搏系统安全有效,在现实世界中,在资源有限的情况下表现出良好的短期效果。这种起搏形式为房颤阻断需要起搏的患者提供了一种可行的选择,特别是对于有血管通路问题或有导联或起搏器并发症高风险的患者。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
12
审稿时长
7 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信